D&D 5E Shield Variants for a greek setting

[General Duf]

I am working up a Greek/Hellenic setting for some friends, and I feel the shield option in the Handbook is inadequate for a culture centered on the use of large formations wielding shields. I am hoping that some of you may have some experience adding equipment or might have some critiques. So far I have come up with the following:

Aspis/Hoplon

• Standard shield you see in the majority of greek depictions. Think the shields the Spartans used in 300
• Its a large(ish), sturdy shield but it is heavy and cumbersome
• +2 AC, Disadv. on dex skills

Pelte

• Light shield, typically used by irregular/ranged (and typically very poor) troops
• Its very light, cheap but it is not really designed for use against melee weapons
• +2 AC vs Ranged, +1 AC vs Melee weapons, 50/50 chance the shield is destroyed when struck by slashing/piercing weapons in melee

Boeotian Shield

• Lighter and more narrow than the Aspis, cut outs in the shield make it good for fighting in formations
• +1AC or +2AC if used 2 or more characters are fighting in a formation (likely tied into the shield feat)

I've tried to vary them, and give each an advantage against another in a given situation. I haven't tried to place costs on them yet, so any input there is also welcome. Thanks in advance

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You've put a lot of work into deciding when to hand out a +1 effective bonus in specific situations, which is a lot more granularity then we see elsewhere in the game (where, if you recall, a battleaxe is mathematically identical to a longsword).

If you really want to make these shields stand out, on the scale that the game system typically deals with, you should probably be using Advantage/Disadvantage. As an example, here's what I would do:

Aspis/Hoplon - standard shield that grants +2 AC.
Pelte - +2 AC against ranged attacks, no benefit against melee attacks.
Boetian Shield - Attacks against you have Disadvantage while you are adjacent to 2 or more allies who are also wielding this shield, no benefit while out of formation.

 

[General Duf]

Thanks for the input. The arbitrary assignment of +1s is probably the 3.5 creeping back in. I have always been very hesitant to hand out the adv/disadv.

 

[bganon]

IMO the real issue is lack of rules for fighting in formations. If that's going to be a prominent thing in your campaign, maybe work up some basic rules for phalanx fighting - once that's in place then there will likely be an obvious way for shields to mesh with those rules.

 

[Fimbria]

Not that's anything wrong with the general idea, but all of these shields are strictly weaker than the standard shield. I would worry that nerfing shields would discourage players from playing shield users, and then your work would go to waste. Instead, make the shields situationally better. The pelte is bad in melee, but maybe it wouldn't impede archery or spellcasting. The Boetian is an ordinary shield except it gives an extra benefit when players coordinate.

 

[steeldragons]

I concur that the power/effect of the grecian warrior shields, the hoplites and the use of the phalanx, wasn't that the shield was so superior on its own (though it was certainly a very well made, large shield. The +2 to AC for wielding a shield is already in play), but that when you teamed up with other warriors who knew what to do with those shields, you were practically untouchable. 5e already has "pack tactics" and other such abilities built into the game. So it seems a no-brianer to just model the shield's increased effectiveness on that.

Swirling Shell: When you are fighting with an Aspis/Hoplon shield-wielding ally within 5' of you, you both gain the +2 bonus of the other shield to your own AC. You gain/share this increase from a maximum of two other Hoplon-wielding allies.

Shield Wall/Phalanx: When you are fighting with an Aspis/Hoplon shield-wielding ally within 5', you all gain the +2 bonus of the other shields to your own AC. You gain/share this increase from a maximum of four other Hoplon-wielding allies.

Other than that, the standard +2 AC bonus for having a nice/large shield is sufficient and requires no other adjustment. It's not "the shield" that does anything...it's what you do with it/how you use it.

As for the others, I'm sure they're historically accurate things, but I've never heard of them and don't really know/couldn't say what it makes sense for them to do. But I'd recommend the same thing. Just give them some "maneuver/stunt" kind of add on -for how they are used- to their AC adjustment.

 

[hejtmane]

That is one thing I have not liked about shields in 5e that they did not have variants for heavy or light shields.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That is one thing I have not liked about shields in 5e that they did not have variants for heavy or light shields.

In terms of general effectiveness, they probably didn't see the need for that level of detail. Small shields make up for their lack of coverage with speed of movement, so the AC was considered the same. In massed battle formations (particularly against missile fire), large shields are better, but that isn't the usual context for D&D combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D has always given shield short shrift, but you could easily shift the focus from armor to shields or to formations.

In 5e, you have three kinds of armor, one kind of shield almost as an afterthought, and nothing about formations, at all. You could change that to formation being the primary thing, followed by shield use, with armor as the afterthought.

Formation

Alone (no allies adjacent / enemies can attack from any direction / ranged attackers have you surrounded)
None: 10+DEX Bonus
Pelta: 11 + DEX Bonus
Boetian/Aspis/Hoplon: 12 + DEX bonus

Back-to-Back (at least one adjacent ally / enemies can attack from flank but not directly behind / includes 1-on-1 'in the round' / ranged attackers have you in a crossfire )
None: 11+DEX Bonus up to +3
Pelta: 12 + DEX Bonus up to +2
Boetian: 14 + DEX Bonus up to +2
Aspis/Hoplon: 15 + DEX bonus up to +2

Phalanx (at least two allies adjacent / enemies can only attack from directly in front / ranged attackers are distant & not spread out )
None: 13
Pelta: 15
Beotian: 16
Aspis/Hoplon: 18

Armor: +2 (Disadvantage for Stealth) STR 13+

To be in a formation, you either need to have one or two allies adjacent, or have blocking terrain, or just not have enemies all around you. For instance, if you're in an actual phalanx, but you're on the furthermost right edge of it, you can be attacked from your right, and would only have the 'back to back' AC when an enemy flanks you that way (something phalanxes were quite vulnerable to). Similarly, if you're fighting a single opponent and both are free to move, you can circle eachother but probably never attack from directly behind, so, get the 'Back to Back' AC, in spite of being alone. Conversely, if you're in a narrow corridor with only one enemy in front of you, you may get the phalanx AC even without adjacent allies.



One of the oddities of D&D is that while most things - save DCs, save bonuses, attack rolls, etc - rely on level, AC is based mainly on armor, proficiency doesn't come into it. The above assumes you want the range of ACs to remain about the same in spite of being in a setting with 'lower tech' armor. Instead of the highest ACs being dependent on acquiring the most expensive armor, they're dependent on staying in the most favorable formation or using terrain to limit the attacker's options.

 

[General Duf]

My intent was that the PCs would be Achilles in the making and not necessarily subject to fighting in the standard phalanx (unless they really wanted to do so). More akin to irregulars used to perform certain tasks, than rank and file soldiers. I totally dig the idea of making some formations, and will mull on the things suggested.

I was trying to create some new items that would allow people to specialize in their particular area better. The heavy unwieldy hoplon would be favored by the 'sword-and-board' types, while the pelte would be favored by the ranged characters (or as someone suggested, casters). Definitely some new things to consider.